Scottish Nationalism and the Idea of Europe

Concepts of Europe and the Nation

Atsuko Ichijo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN: 9780714655918
• eBook ISBN: 9781135768478
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

'Independence in Europe', adopted by the Scottish National Party (SNP) as its core policy in 1988, has become part and parcel of contemporary Scottish nationalism. But is this not a contradiction in terms? Nationalistic logic dictates that one cannot demand independence while accepting the constraints that come with membership of the European Union. This book takes up that question and explores the conditions that have emerged and become integrated with Scottish society today.

Scottish Nationalism and the Idea of Europe offers fresh insights into the 'pro-European' dimension of Scottish nationalism and its implications for the UK. The book also argues for the necessity of examining the uses of history in seeking to understand the 'new' nationalisms of contemporary Europe.

1
The Scots and Scotland

The sociologist David McCrone declared in his Understanding Scotland: The Sociology of a Stateless Nation that ‘Scotland stands at the forefront of sociological concern of the late twentieth century’.¹ This chapter is written in a similar spirit in order to demonstrate that the case of Scotland has much to offer the study of nationalism. One of the most frequently used adjectives when discussing Scottish nationalism is ‘exceptional’, which suggests that the Scottish case does not always comply with usual expectation. Why is that the case? Does it mean that Scottish nationalism is therefore not ‘proper’ nationalism? Or does it mean that it can help to pinpoint the lacuna in existing theories of nationalism? I believe the latter is the case, and the main aim of this chapter is to highlight what the Scottish case can offer to the future discussion of nationalism.

WHO ARE THE SCOTS? THE PROBLEM OF DEMARCATION

Who are the Scots? What is Scottishness? What it the essence of being a Scot? These are the questions which were put to the respondents in this book, and ones that many scholars and those who are interested in Scottish nationalism have been asking for some time, and they are not easy to answer. One of the respondents states ‘[compared with other cases] being Scottish is much more difficult to handle’ but there is a shared sense that the Scots ‘do have a cultural identity though in some ways this is more subtle than in the case of some other groups’. Why do the respondents use words such as ‘difficult’ or ‘subtle’ in their attempt to explain what is to be a Scot? It is mostly to do with the fact that there is not any unambiguous demarcator which distinguishes the Scots from others.

In the Japanese case, with which I am very familiar, being Japanese can be determined by various combinations of some, or all, relatively ‘objective’ criteria. Being born to Japanese parents (or possibly a parent) is important; it ensures a certain homogeneity in the physical appearance of the Japanese people. If one has Japanese parents, one

does not have to be born in Japan to be a Japanese although it is always preferable. The language is also essential, as being Japanese involves being a native speaker of the Japanese language. This is part of the reason why those children who are born and raised abroad with a poor command of Japanese are often faced with subtle or overt discrimination against them when they finally return to Japan. Having a Japanese passport is another criterion albeit not as important as other demarcators. In contemporary Japan, while the Japanese can be Christian or Muslim, or can subscribe to any of the thriving new religions, they have to have a good understanding of the Japanese way of life and thinking, both of which have been deeply influenced by Shintoism and Buddhism. In contemporary Japan, to sum up, blood and language are the most important characteristics in determining who the Japanese are.

By contrast, largely due to the Anglicisation which has been taking place since the Middle Ages, the Scots have little to distinguish themselves from others, especially from the English, their southern neighbours. Take the language to begin with. There are at least a couple of languages spoken in contemporary Scotland: English and Gaelic. Many, however, claim that Scots is also a separate language rather than a dialect of English.² In addition, some writers tried to revive and establish Lallans as the literary language for Scotland in the early twentieth century. Whether Scots or Lallans is a language or not is not a concern of this study; what should be noted here is that contemporary Scotland lacks the linguistic homogeneity that seems to be an essential element in binding other nations together. This is also the case when we look at Scottish history; there was no linguistic unity in what is now called Scotland.³ Furthermore, the undisputedly different language, Gaelic, has been on the decline – the number of native Gaelic speakers has been steadily shrinking although the number of learners is on the increase.⁴ Some would argue that the accent with which the Scots speak English can be a demarcator, and it may serve the purpose to a certain extent in everyday life. Indeed, one hears of many episodes about children with an English accent being bullied in Scottish schools and about people who feel aggravated when they hear only English accents on the radio or television. There is, however, no single Scottish accent and some prominent Scottish nationalists speak with an English accent without causing any outrage among their colleagues. The Scottish accent is not therefore a very clear criterion of being Scottish.

Another criterion, religion, is not sufficient in defining the Scots of the early twenty-first century. Membership of the established church, the Church of Scotland, could have been enough to determine who the Scots were for a long time after the Reformation. The Church of Scotland, like any of the other established churches in the United Kingdom, is suffering from falling membership.⁵ It is no longer the case that the majority of the Scottish population belong to the Kirk. In addition, contrary to the myth of a Protestant Scotland, it is now clear that Scotland was never a thoroughly Protestant country; Catholicism survived the turmoil of the Reformation in the Highlands partly because of the scarcity of the Protestant clergy who could speak Gaelic.⁶ Centuries later, the successive waves of Irish immigrants brought Catholicism back to the west coast of Scotland, some of whose offspring now proudly call themselves Scots. It is fair to say that in contemporary Scotland, whether one belongs to the Kirk is not a clear criterion of being Scottish, although Presbyterianism is still perceived as an important characteristic of contemporary Scottish society by many Scots and observers.

When neither language nor religion can determine who the Scots are, the concept of ‘race’ is also redundant. Needless to say, much depends on the definition of race; even in its loosest sense, if one were to look out for a Scottish ‘race’, the search would surely be in vain,⁷ for so many different peoples have left their footprints on the Scottish soil, a fact acknowledged by many Scots. There were Picts, and Scots who migrated from Ireland in ancient times. Later, the Romans tried to pacify Caledonia; Britons came to inhabit the southern part of Scotland; Saxons, Normans, Norsemen came in successive waves of migration. Even though the movement of people on a large scale slowed down during the medieval period, and even with the rise of racialist ideology in the nineteenth century, the idea of a Scottish ‘race’ never crystallised. The recognition of the ‘racial’ and ethnic diversity within Scotland, especially in the form of the highland–lowland divide, was so strongly held that the idea of ‘one race’ could not take root.⁸ From the nineteenth century onwards, there have been further influxes of different nationalities into Scotland: Italians, Irish, Poles, Lithuanians and east European Jews. Since the Second World War, waves of Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have also come to and settled in Scotland. Although Scotland is not free from racism in terms of a sense of white supremacy, defining the Scots as a white race does not distinguish them from the English as a nation. Racism in contemporary Scotland may still have a role in defining internally who the ‘real’ Scots are, but it is not featured prominently in the definition of the Scottish nation in relation to the others.⁹ This discussion brings us back to where we started; defining who the Scots are is not easy, a point admitted by many of the respondents when the question was put to them.

Despite the above, it is now more appropriate than ever to talk about the Scottish nation. One of the respondents, a self-professed Unionist, stated that while he is British first and Scottish second, his children are Scottish first and British second and, according to him, this is the general trend. The recognition of a heightened sense of Scottish nationhood among the contemporary Scots is also observed by other respondents. It has been seen in many aspects of contemporary Scottish society; it is not confined to conventional politics and academic activities but has been manifested in popular culture as well. The lack of clear, ‘objective’ demarcators does not hinder the strengthening of a sense of Scottish identity. Not only that, this recently intensified sense of Scottish nationhood does not seem to encourage a search for any of these demarcators. There is no serious attempt to make the Gaelic language compulsory in schools or to unify the Scottish people spiritually, or ‘racially’.

Meanwhile, the demand for greater autonomy or independence has been steadily growing, as will be seen in greater detail in the following chapters. Most discussion of a Scottish Parliament adopted the principle of residence when faced with the question of ‘Who are the Scots?’; people are Scottish if they live in Scotland. This is the position adopted by the SNP as well as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, a consultative body which, in 1995, produced Scotland’s Right, Scotland’s Parliament, a proposal for a Scottish Parliament. Those who were eligible to vote at the referendum on the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1997 were indeed those who were entitled to vote at the local election and lived in Scotland. The Scottish Parliamentary Election Survey of 1999 also found that although birth was the most important criterion for being a Scottish citizen according to the respondents, just over 50 per cent of them were also prepared to accept residence over birth, and descent was the least important criterion.¹⁰ The Scottish preference for the principle of residence is frequently presented in contrast to some of the states that gained their independence recently, such as Latvia and Estonia, where the language requirement was incorporated as a condition of citizenship being granted.¹¹ To understand this contrast, it may be useful to introduce a certain set of ideal types of nationalism: ethnic vs. civic nationalism. As it is not the purpose of this chapter to examine the different types of nationalism, it should suffice merely to mention in passing that the type of nationalism which the majority of contemporary Scottish nationalists pursue is very close to civic nationalism, which deals with the question of demarcation in non-cultural, non-ethnic ways.

The Scottish case demonstrates powerfully the importance of the subjective element, that is, the will of the people in forming and maintaining a nation. The ‘Who are the Scots?’ question is often met by answers such as ‘it is an affair of the mind’. This strongly subjective and also voluntaristic characteristic of the contemporary Scottish nation is captured well by theorists such as Ernest Renan and Max Weber. Neither of them tries to define a nation using ‘objective’ criteria. Instead, they stress the ambiguity of the definition of a nation: for Renan, the only criterion is the will of people to hold together; for Weber, a nation is about cultural values.¹² The Scottish case, however, defies other attempts that are made in order to reduce the ambiguity of the definition of the nation conceded by Renan and Weber. Stalin’s once influential, ‘scientific’ definition of a nation fails to encompass the Scottish nation as such because he demands that all four of his criteria be satisfied.¹³ Anthony Giddens, whose main concern is the nation-state, which he holds to be one of the main characteristics of modern society, entwines nation and state. According to Giddens, the nation is a collectivity which is subject to a unitary rule.¹⁴ The Scots do not satisfy his definition since they do not have their own government. But a nation is a community. As David McCrone carefully depicts, the Scots form their own community which has similar qualities to other ‘proper’ nations.¹⁵ Giddens’ agenda prevents himself from recognising the importance of the community aspect of the nation.

As stated, the Scottish nation lacks clear demarcators. What, then, does bind them together? Where does the shared sense of being Scottish come from? There are three main elements. The first is territory. As a few of the respondents point out, the borders of the area now called Scotland have been relatively stable; although it is an exaggeration to assert, as some of the respondents did, that the Scottish borders have been unchanged since Roman times, it is plausible to claim that they have been largely unchanged, especially in relation to England, since the late ninth century, when the Kingdom of Alba came into being.¹⁶ By the thirteenth century, when the phrase ‘the Kingdom of Scotland’ was already in common use, the Anglo-Scottish border was fixed on the Tweed–Solway line as conceded by Alexander II of Scotland in 1237.¹⁷ The later disputes concerning the Anglo-Scottish border, however, have not had any significant impact on the overall territorial integrity of Scotland.¹⁸ One of the consequences of the stability of the borders is that it has made a territorial definition of Scots possible; Scots are the people who live in Scotland....

Table of contents

• COVER PAGE
• TITLE PAGE
• COPYRIGHT PAGE
• DEDICATION
• TABLES
• FOREWORD
• SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• ABBREVIATIONS
• INTRODUCTION
• 1. THE SCOTS AND SCOTLAND
• 2. THE EMERGENCE OF THE ‘SCOTLAND AND EUROPE’ THEME
• 3. THE EVOLUTION OF THE IDEA OF EUROPE
• 4. ‘EUROPE IS GOOD FOR SCOTLAND’: IN THE EYES OF THE RESPONDENTS
• 5. THE USES OF HISTORY: WHY EUROPE IS GOOD FOR SCOTLAND
• 6. SCOTLAND AND EUROPE: AN ASSESSMENT
• CONCLUSION
• APPENDIX 1
• APPENDIX 2
• BIBLIOGRAPHY